Case 3313567/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Craven v Parrott & Coales LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313567/2023
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Craven
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 30 November 2023. The Respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Young determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £3,495.12 gross in respect of that claim. It also found that the Claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £10,186.47.
The judgment records a total award of £13,681.59. No separate findings, legal tests, or additional remedy components are set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determination made under Rule 21 after the Respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The judgment states the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages and must pay £3,495.12 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,495 |
| Redundancy | Determination made under Rule 21 after the Respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The judgment states the Respondent must pay a redundancy payment of £10,186.47. | Upheld | — | £10,186 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,682
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.